I’ve been studying the biomechanics of running and running shoes since about 426 issues of Runner’s World ago. My early research was heavily focused on elite runners but now it’s more about the mid-packers and joggers that make up the majority of our running community. My lab in Oregon serves as the Runner’s World Shoe Lab. We test every product that’s reviewed in Runner’s World, Running Times and runnersworld.com - almost 200 products per year.

This week, in the spirit of "Ask Me Anything", I’ll do my best to respond to whatever is on your mind. That said, I'm more likely to offer coherent responses on topics related to the science of running and running shoes. That could include running form, running economy, foot-strike, feet, arches, pronation, running shoes, shoe tests, shoe selection, barefoot/minimal, injury risk factors, etc.

I have been running for a little over two years, two to three mile runs several times a week in Nike Frees (5.0). About three months ago, I joined a group to train for my first half marathon. I noticed that I was the only person who was not wearing Asics or Brooks, so I went to a local running store to talk with someone about it. I currently do not experience any pain or soreness after my distance runs, and have never been injured, but he was adamant that I needed more cushion in my shoes and sold me a pair of Brooks. I tried running with them and they feel, hot, heavy and cumbersome. After doing some research online, I can't find a lot of compelling arguments for switching from a minimalist running shoe to a cushioned shoe. I'm thinking about returning them and buying another pair of barefoot shoes, but I don't want this to lead to injury in the long run. Any thoughts?

Where did this recommendation to replace shoes every 300-500 miles come from and why is it almost impossible anymore to get even 600-800 miles out of a pair of shoes. Back in the '70s and '80s I would regularly get over 2000 miles from a pair.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the rising popularity of the ultra cushioned Hoka shoes. many ultra runners have gone to them, and now they are finding their way in to marathons and shorter distances. Not only are they saving my knee, but I'm getting nearly 4x's the miles out of a pair, than I ever got from traditional mainstream running shoes.

I have naturally hypermobile joints and have been having arch pain for a while now. A rheumatologist I went to said my arches fall a little, and I've had issues with the bones in my arches moving out of place. It's not painful, but sometimes my chiropractor and I have to do a bit of work to get the bone to go back where it's supposed to be. My plantar fascia seems to be fine; it's my arch, closer to the outside of my foot, that's having issues. I've been running in a Brooks Adrenaline and recently added Super Feet inserts. I just got a pair of Brooks Cascadias because the roads around here get a little treacherous in the fall/winter with debris and ice. Is there any other shoe you can recommend for my wacky feet?

"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will." - Ghandi

When I read about under- and over-pronation from high and flat arches, respectively, I hear about non-optimal distributions of force as the foot rolls from the heel to the front of the foot. However, do these tendencies apply to runners with a mid-foot strike who don't roll off their heels? If it doesn't, then should mid-foot-strike runners buy shoes designed for normal pronation regardless of their arch type?

Since you mentioned that you studied the biomechanics of running, is there a way to correct supination? I would like to correct mine since my running shoes seem not to last as long for other types of foot strikers.

Is there any effort to take where ShoeFitr or Shoe Lab originated with (public) basic metrics and bring user information to the next level in order to demonstrate the degree and/or affect of "support" or "cushion" in a given shoe?

Because "support" is such a fluid term loosely used by manufacturers and runners, is it possible to demonstrate with greater precision what degree of support exists (post versus bump from midsole versus an upper which wraps the arch from beneath, etc)? I'm thinking ramp angles/lengths and the like to give a more informed, 3-dimensional perspective. This could help educate the public on the difference between "guidance" and "support".

Same goes for "cushion". Deflection and compression rates are known factors in the med/surg industry (and even in the auto industry) when manufacturing a product utilizing rubber and foam formulations. Why aren't these factors brought to public light with regard to running shoes? This could help educate the public on the difference between shock attenuation and "cushion".

I have run approximately 1000 miles in my current Asics GT 2170s and they still feel great. I know I'm playing with fire here but I have been running about 40 miles/week in them and I rarely if ever suffer from knee pain, leg fatigue, back aches, itbs etc etc.

I bought a pair of Brooks Adrenaline 14 yesterday, took them out for 8 miles and experienced back stiffness, heel pain, achilles soreness and pain on the top of my right foot.

My PT identified that my right leg crosses further to my midline than my left, creating a sharper heel strike, external rotation, and rate of pronation. Other gait parameters were good (not overstriding, landing mostly midfoot). I've attributed this observation to the fact 90+% of my miles are necessarily run on the left side of crowned roads. While I'm making an effort to eliminate and balance this out, can you recommend a type of shoe that might mitigate this characteristic? Perhaps a rounded rather than flared heel (i.e. Nike Wildhorse versus traditional road shoe)? Would a lower or zero drop shoe help? Any other considerations?

According to Jeff Dengate, "The goal is for the [Adidas Springblade] to spring back with each step and propel a runner forward." It appears this would be the case at the heel for a heel striker but "propulsion" obviously needs to occur at toe-off. As designed, it appears the net effect of the forefoot blades would act only to slide the foot backwards slightly and that for a "propulsive" effect the blades should actually be oriented in the opposite direction. Can you please weigh in on this?

I loved Nikes Equalon 4´s and for some reason they discontinued them about 3 years ago. Switched to Nike L Lunar Eclipse 2 which were great, but the LE3´s are much stiffer and supportive and I don´t like them.

What do you recommend? I´m not bothered about the brand. Would love to find a shoe that is similar to the EQ 4 or the LE2.

What's your take on minimal vs. traditional running shoes? I run in several different shoes, neutral & mod support, some with normal to high arch, a few with lower arch, offset 4mm to 11+ mm. Is is better to stick with one shoe, or switch for general training runs and higher mileage? for racing?

My question is about shoes for kids. I have two daughters, 9 and 10 years-old, and they are starting to run at school with the running club and are training for a 5k at the end of the month. Should I take them to a running store to get them fitted for a pair of shoes? or any running shoe is OK as long as they feel it comfortable?

i completely tore some ligaments and tendons in my ankle while snowboarding. i had seen a orthopedic surgeon. this is an atypical injury so he just said just go out and see how it feels. now. when i run i need at least an elastic brace. i do not need a brace when i walk, even in minimalistic shoes (nike free 5.0). i just finished a walk-run marathon with no issue.

have you done any testing of weaken joints and shoe?

what's the less supportive shoe that i can use. can i try a minimalistic shoe as my 'core' shoe?

should i do surgery? if i hold off, would i quicken the wearing of the ankle or any other joint?

I'm on my second pair of New Balance 860v3 and am window shopping for something new. How do the Brooks Adrenaline GTS14 and the Saucony Progrid Omni 11 stack up against the New Balance shoes for a flat-footed overpronator?

i'm flat footed, light heel striker. when i'm evaluated by high definition slow camera, you can see my arch collapsing (both barefooted & neutral). BUT, the forefoot of the shoe shows i'm pushing off the 3 end toes. Weird. i do get a few injuries, like , morton's neuroma during one marathon training cycle.

i use asiscs kayano and gt as well as nb 1221. the pattern on the shoes are the same.

I have been running for a little over two years, two to three mile runs several times a week in Nike Frees (5.0). About three months ago, I joined a group to train for my first half marathon. I noticed that I was the only person who was not wearing Asics or Brooks, so I went to a local running store to talk with someone about it. I currently do not experience any pain or soreness after my distance runs, and have never been injured, but he was adamant that I needed more cushion in my shoes and sold me a pair of Brooks. I tried running with them and they feel, hot, heavy and cumbersome. After doing some research online, I can't find a lot of compelling arguments for switching from a minimalist running shoe to a cushioned shoe. I'm thinking about returning them and buying another pair of barefoot shoes, but I don't want this to lead to injury in the long run. Any thoughts?

If you have been running for two years in Free's, including some longer half marathon prep runs, with no issues, I also see no compelling reason to switch. Sore feet after a long run would be an indicator that you need more cushioning, but you seem to be well adapted to the more modest cushioning in the NIKE's so I don't see a problem. If they are working for you, stick with them.

One word of caution: You are thinking about "buying another pair of barefoot shoes". The NIKE Free is not a barefoot or minimal shoe in the strict sense. Its what we call "Minimal Plus" - a lightweight, flexible, low profile shoe that has a cushioned midsole. Minimal/barefoot shoes have no cushioning at all. If you do get a new pair, I'd suggest staying with the Free or getting something similar with a similar degree of cushioning between your feet and the ground.

Good luck with the your first half marathon. When it starts to hurt, just remember that It gets easier after the first 13.1 miles.

Where did this recommendation to replace shoes every 300-500 miles come from and why is it almost impossible anymore to get even 600-800 miles out of a pair of shoes. Back in the '70s and '80s I would regularly get over 2000 miles from a pair.

Experience says that for most runners, a pair of shoes goes 500-600 miles before the outsole and cushioning start to breakdown. The useful lifetime depends on the the runner and the shoe so individual experience will vary. Lightweight shoes tend to wear out more quickly than chunkier ones. My recollection of the 70's and 80's is that running shoes were less, not more, durable; but again, individual experiences will vary substantially

Can you suggest any make/model shoes that I might try as a replacement for the soon to be discontinued Mizuno Wave Elixir?

Thank you,

Eric

If you look up the Elixir in "Shoes Like Mine" page of RW's online Shoe Finder tool ( http://www.runnersworld.com/shoemine ) it will give you a list of the most similar shoes in our database. Mizuno is introducing several new products that effectively update the discontinued models. We recently gave the new Sayonara a good review, for example.

Would love to hear your thoughts on the rising popularity of the ultra cushioned Hoka shoes. many ultra runners have gone to them, and now they are finding their way in to marathons and shorter distances. Not only are they saving my knee, but I'm getting nearly 4x's the miles out of a pair, than I ever got from traditional mainstream running shoes.

I was originally skeptical about the Hoka's, but have come to believe that they meet a specialized need. The most common report I get is that are great for running down mountains when you feet and legs would otherwise take a pounding. The latest models are less extreme and could work for more people.

I have naturally hypermobile joints and have been having arch pain for a while now. A rheumatologist I went to said my arches fall a little, and I've had issues with the bones in my arches moving out of place. It's not painful, but sometimes my chiropractor and I have to do a bit of work to get the bone to go back where it's supposed to be. My plantar fascia seems to be fine; it's my arch, closer to the outside of my foot, that's having issues. I've been running in a Brooks Adrenaline and recently added Super Feet inserts. I just got a pair of Brooks Cascadias because the roads around here get a little treacherous in the fall/winter with debris and ice. Is there any other shoe you can recommend for my wacky feet?

I can't address specific medical issues, but if the pain on the outside of your arch it may not be just a hypermobility issue. If you land on the outside edges of your feet, you may be loading the base of the 5th metatarsal (the bone the sticks out from the lateral arch region). If that's the case, I'd recommend a shoe that has a flat, continuous midsole and outsole - i.e. no waist or "scoop" in the arch region of the sole.

Hello! I am currently running in Brooks Adrenaline. I now have knee pain in my right knee and had terrible knots in my calf earlier. The knee doesn't hurt while running but after. New massage therapist and I agree ITB. She said she thought I would see wear on the inside heel of that shoe. She was right. Checked my old shoes -no similar wear pattern. Old shoes Mizuno Nirvana.

Sooo...I had terrible achilles tendonitis. Came on while running in Mizuno Inspire. Some improvement..switched to Nirvana OK - but still there. Went to PT -slowly ramped up running while doing other strengthening - and moved to Adrenaline. Achilles feels great. Knee not so much......do you think the shoe is making my knee hurt? Do I need a more or less stable shoe? I like the Adrenaline more than the Mizunos for a couple reasons...my feet and back feel better after running.....Achilles feels like a champ....only the knee now. Thanks!

When I read about under- and over-pronation from high and flat arches, respectively, I hear about non-optimal distributions of force as the foot rolls from the heel to the front of the foot. However, do these tendencies apply to runners with a mid-foot strike who don't roll off their heels? If it doesn't, then should mid-foot-strike runners buy shoes designed for normal pronation regardless of their arch type?

Midfoot strikers pronate, too, so I would not use it as an excuse to ignore potential pronation issues.

Also, while you experience a midfoot strike, that may not be what you are doing mechanically. While almost half of runners report that they are midfoot strikers, high speed video shows that more than 90% are actually heel strikers. The reason for the discrepancy is that at the instant of foot contact, the force on your foot is close to zero so there is nothing to feel. Also the peak load under the heel occurs when the foot is flat of the ground and the the peak load overall occurs in mid-stance. All of this means that a runner is more likely to sense a more anterior (i.e. midfoot or forefoot) contact than actually occurs.

The only way to find out for sure is to get some side-view video of yourself running. If you can find a camera with a high- speed video function (e.g. a Casio Exilim) all the better. If your heel and forefoot make contact with the ground simultaneously (in the same frame) then you really are a midfoot striker. Don't worry of you you turn out to be heel striking after all. There's no need to change. Despite what you may have heard elsewhere, heel-toe contact is a normal, natural and efficient way to run at anything less than 5 min/mile pace.

Can you suggest any make/model shoes that I might try as a replacement for the soon to be discontinued Mizuno Wave Elixir?

Thank you,

Eric

If you look up the Elixir in "Shoes Like Mine" page of RW's online Shoe Finder tool ( http://www.runnersworld.com/shoemine ) it will give you a list of the most similar shoes in our database. Mizuno is introducing several new products that effectively update the discontinued models. We recently gave the new Sayonara a good review, for example.

Thank you I will check out that online tool. FWIW I tried the Sayonara for 50+ miles and it did not work for me.

Since you mentioned that you studied the biomechanics of running, is there a way to correct supination? I would like to correct mine since my running shoes seem not to last as long for other types of foot strikers.

Depends what you mean by "supination". From a biomechanical perspective, the foot always pronates (rolls inwards) during ground contact. A supinator's foot does not does not roll out. Typically what supinators are experiencing is the foot landing in a more rolled out supinated position (on the outside edge) before rolling in, and/or less rolling in during ground contact.

Let's assume you are experiencing something similar and see heavy wear on the outside edge of your running shoes. A fix may not be required if all you are experiencing is shoe wear and no related symptoms or pain. Shoes with a more substantial outsole to resist wear and with no posting or stability features would be the usual recommendation but the specifics will depend on your individual anatomy, skeletal alignment and gait. If you are experiencing pain or discomfort, a prescription orthotic may help.

I have been a runner for 3 years, 2 of them with regularity(30-35mpw). I have pretty much ran in Newtons the whole time and enjoy them but I am curious as to why my shoes can look so good and the treads look so newish but the cushion is gone so soon(about 500 miles, pretty typical). I only weigh 115lbs and am petetive as a female, my foot strike has been deemed "efficient" so I don't have a lot of scraping or plodding or foot slapping...

So why don't my shoes last longer than say, a 200lb man? I would think that my shoes should last longer with my lighter weight and efficient stride but they don't. I run on paved city trails and we don't have a ton of hills(my overall gain in elevation is 300ft at a lake I run on the dam during any run over 4 miles).

Can I do anything to help my shoes last longer? I know they are finished in the 2 pair shoe rotation when my legs feel "flu-like" achy. I have a half worn pair and a new pair(or old & half worn if it is reaching the end of the cycle) and run every other day except a back to back Monday/Tuesday shorter run each am. So 4 days, at least 3 days before a shoe gets reused. They are kept in boxes in my closet in my bedroom unless being worn. Running only, no walking or casual. That is what "retired" shoes are for.

Where did this recommendation to replace shoes every 300-500 miles come from and why is it almost impossible anymore to get even 600-800 miles out of a pair of shoes. Back in the '70s and '80s I would regularly get over 2000 miles from a pair.

Experience says that for most runners, a pair of shoes goes 500-600 miles before the outsole and cushioning start to breakdown. The useful lifetime depends on the the runner and the shoe so individual experience will vary. Lightweight shoes tend to wear out more quickly than chunkier ones. My recollection of the 70's and 80's is that running shoes were less, not more, durable; but again, individual experiences will vary substantially

I got 2,000+ miles out of my last pair of NBs. I expect about the same from my current pair.

Sure, the cushioning wears out, but it's a gradual process, and I find that my feet adapt pretty well, much as if I were transitioning into minimalist shoes.

I strongly suspect that the idea of replacing shoes after 500 miles was promoted by the shoe companies to sell more shoes. It's similar to my Dad's generation who were sold the myth that you need to replace your car after 50,000 miles, or the currently accepted myth that oil changes are required every 3 months, regardless of mileage.

In some cases, I was following a fast running, good looking, seductively clad woman. In others, I was making a half-hearted attempt to do speed work, despite my absolute hatred of it. In any case, the following results are intended for entertainment purposes only, not because I'm trying to be the next Speed Racer of running.

Is there any effort to take where ShoeFitr or Shoe Lab originated with (public) basic metrics and bring user information to the next level in order to demonstrate the degree and/or affect of "support" or "cushion" in a given shoe?

Because "support" is such a fluid term loosely used by manufacturers and runners, is it possible to demonstrate with greater precision what degree of support exists (post versus bump from midsole versus an upper which wraps the arch from beneath, etc)? I'm thinking ramp angles/lengths and the like to give a more informed, 3-dimensional perspective. This could help educate the public on the difference between "guidance" and "support".

Same goes for "cushion". Deflection and compression rates are known factors in the med/surg industry (and even in the auto industry) when manufacturing a product utilizing rubber and foam formulations. Why aren't these factors brought to public light with regard to running shoes? This could help educate the public on the difference between shock attenuation and "cushion".

"Cushioning" is used to describe three very different things. (1) Impact attenuation (2) Pressure reduction - what I think you mean by "cushion" (3) Comfort. In the Shoe Lab we use constant energy impact tests to measure force, deflection and impact shock of both the heel and forefoot. In the the Shoe Guides, these numbers are reduced to heel and forefoot cushioning scores a 1-100 scale. Those scores are actually percentiles of the distribution of impact attenuation scores seen in the market place so they are directly related to the physical properties of the cushioning system.

We quantify the load distribution or "cushion" aspect by measuring the stiffness (load/deflection) in a lower load range. We don't report these scores in the shoe guides because they are highly correlated with the impact attenuation scores but they are incorporated into the algorithm used by the RW's online Shoe Finder tool.

"Comfort" is a psychological outcome that does not necessarily have a mechanical correlate so our evaluations are based on wear tester ratings. These responses are statistically processed and reported as percentiles of the known response range. We only put comments in the Shoe Guides but, again, the wear test response statistics are included in the online Shoe Finder.

As you point out, "Stability" and "Support" are more complex issues. In this regard, the effects of shoes are a dynamic outcome of the interaction between the runner and a shoe (Pronation control doesn't control pronation if the runner does nor pronate, etc.). Measuring outcomes in a large enough pool of subjects is not possible given the large number of shoes we test and the short time frame we have to work with. However, we do make an assessment of the "stability features" of each shoe we test. This is a weighted index of nine shoe features that are known to influence stability outcomes. The results are well correlated with treadmill tests and wear tester reports but, since there is a subjective element, we do not report them in the Shoe Guides. Again, the stability feature ratings are embedded in the online ShoeFinder tool. This is not a perfect solution by any means but it is a practical and economical surrogate. At the same time, we have an ongoing program of research looking at the effects of individual anatomy and footwear on the 3D kinematics of the lower leg, ankle and foot that we hope will eventually lead us to a more objective metric.

I have run approximately 1000 miles in my current Asics GT 2170s and they still feel great. I know I'm playing with fire here but I have been running about 40 miles/week in them and I rarely if ever suffer from knee pain, leg fatigue, back aches, itbs etc etc.

I bought a pair of Brooks Adrenaline 14 yesterday, took them out for 8 miles and experienced back stiffness, heel pain, achilles soreness and pain on the top of my right foot.

What gives?

The most common trigger of soreness and injury is a sudden change in your running habits. Over time, your body adapts to habitual loads. Increasing mileage or speed, different surfaces or terrain, and other changes can increase the loads on your body or shift loads to different muscles, etc. The result is that the parts of your body experiencing increased load are taken out of their habitual load range and get sore. Chainging to a radically different shoe can have the same effect. That's why we always recommend that any change in training habits be made gradually, over a period of time that allows your body to adapt to the new load regime.

In your specific case, the switch from the the GT 2170 to a the Adrenaline was a significant one. The Adrenaline is significantly less cushioned and provides significantly more motion control than the 2170. Eight miles first time out was probably too much for such a dramatic shoe change. The soreness is your body telling you "I'm not used to this, I need time to adapt". The Adrenaline is a great shoe but you may need some time to adapt to it. If you plan to stick with it, I'd suggest starting out by running in the GT 2170 most of the time with a few miles a few times a week in the Adrenaline; then gradually increase the Adrenaline miles over a period of 4-6 weeks (or more). That way, your body will be able to adapt at a more appropriate rate pace. On the other hand, if the GT 1270 has worked well for you, why switch?

What's your take on minimal vs. traditional running shoes? I run in several different shoes, neutral & mod support, some with normal to high arch, a few with lower arch, offset 4mm to 11+ mm. Is is better to stick with one shoe, or switch for general training runs and higher mileage? for racing?

Thank you.

RE: Barefoot/Minimal: Having reviewed all the evidence I can find, I see no compelling evidence that running barefoot or in minimal shoes is advantageous. In my view, it is simply a choice that any runner is free to make. Perhaps the best evidence in favor is that some runners have made the switch and had a very positive experience. Unfortunately others have been hurt and disappointed. Consequently, I recommend that any one making the switch do so gradually, incorporate foot strengthening and stretching exercises into their training regimen, and recognize that they may not get all the way there. Barefoot/minimal does not work for everyone, but at the same time, I think most people can adapt to "less shoe" (lighter more flexible, etc.) over time.

RE: Shoe variations

There is no reason why you should stick to a single shoe model. Variety can even be beneficial as your body learns to accommodate a range of load regimes. It makes sense to wear a more protective shoe for longer runs and a lighter one for racing, provided you have plenty of miles in each one. I would not recommend dramatically different shoes on different days but provided they all feel comfortable and familiar, no problem.

Personally, my Achilles and calf muscles are very sensitive to small differences in heel lift so I try to be consistent, but most people are fitter and more flexible than I am.

My PT identified that my right leg crosses further to my midline than my left, creating a sharper heel strike, external rotation, and rate of pronation. Other gait parameters were good (not overstriding, landing mostly midfoot). I've attributed this observation to the fact 90+% of my miles are necessarily run on the left side of crowned roads. While I'm making an effort to eliminate and balance this out, can you recommend a type of shoe that might mitigate this characteristic? Perhaps a rounded rather than flared heel (i.e. Nike Wildhorse versus traditional road shoe)? Would a lower or zero drop shoe help? Any other considerations?

According to Jeff Dengate, "The goal is for the [Adidas Springblade] to spring back with each step and propel a runner forward." It appears this would be the case at the heel for a heel striker but "propulsion" obviously needs to occur at toe-off. As designed, it appears the net effect of the forefoot blades would act only to slide the foot backwards slightly and that for a "propulsive" effect the blades should actually be oriented in the opposite direction. Can you please weigh in on this?

Sorry, but I really can't discuss medical issues by remote control - best to keep working with your PT.

The Adidas Springblade follows on from the highly resilient ("springy") "boost foam. The claims made for the boost all panned out in our independent lab tests and our wear testers really liked the springy feel. The Springblade is intended to achieve the same goal. We have not tested it in detail yet but the adidas reports I have seen look promising. However, there have been reports in the RW shoe forum of the plate cracking, so it may not be there.

You are correct that energy transfer from heel to forefoot is not possible with this design. However the orientation of the blades does appear to be appropriate, in my view. Certainly, the mechanism does move the foot forwards. The blades have a caterpillar-like action - if you rock backwards and forwards on the shoe, your move forwards by about a quarter inch each cycle. The data I've seen suggests that each step gains a similar amount while running - the equivalent of about 10 yards per mile. No doubt we'll have a lot more to say in a RW Shoe Guide once we've had an opprtunity to test the Springblade more thoroughly.

I loved Nikes Equalon 4´s and for some reason they discontinued them about 3 years ago. Switched to Nike L Lunar Eclipse 2 which were great, but the LE3´s are much stiffer and supportive and I don´t like them.

What do you recommend? I´m not bothered about the brand. Would love to find a shoe that is similar to the EQ 4 or the LE2.

If you look up the EQ4 or LE2 in "Shoes Like Mine" page of RW's online Shoe Finder tool ( http://www.runnersworld.com/shoemine ) it will give you a list of the most similar shoes in our database. Alternatives to the LE2 include the Brooks Ravenna 4 and New Balance 870 V2, for example..

For those of us that wear a lightweight shoe for racing, what percentage of training should we wear this shoe?

Specifically, I race in the Saucany Fastwitch and also use it for some speed workouts. My daily trainer is the Brooks Adrenaline. I'd guess that 10-20% of my total volume (60-80 mpw) is in the racing shoe. Is that enough to stay adapted to the racing shoe, but not so much I'm risking added injuries from a less cushioned shoe?

My question is about shoes for kids. I have two daughters, 9 and 10 years-old, and they are starting to run at school with the running club and are training for a 5k at the end of the month. Should I take them to a running store to get them fitted for a pair of shoes? or any running shoe is OK as long as they feel it comfortable?

Thanks,

Oscar Ross

I think its best to go to a specialty running store, where they are more likely to have a selection of smaller running shoes that are not just look-alikes of the adult versions. Fit and comfort are the most important issues. With all kid's shoes, its also important to minimize compression and restriction of the foot so it can develop naturally. (Most of us have deformed toes and/or bunion-like deformities from wearing shoes that are too tight. Make sure the toe box is big enough to allow the toes to spread, add a little more room for growth and check that the shoe flexes easily with the foot inside. Personally, I think kids' shoes should have plenty of cushioning (smaller bodies produce bigger impact loads) but otherwise they should be as unrestrictive as possible - light, flexible and with a minimum of stability/support features and gadgets.

i completely tore some ligaments and tendons in my ankle while snowboarding. i had seen a orthopedic surgeon. this is an atypical injury so he just said just go out and see how it feels. now. when i run i need at least an elastic brace. i do not need a brace when i walk, even in minimalistic shoes (nike free 5.0). i just finished a walk-run marathon with no issue.

have you done any testing of weaken joints and shoe?

what's the less supportive shoe that i can use. can i try a minimalistic shoe as my 'core' shoe?

should i do surgery? if i hold off, would i quicken the wearing of the ankle or any other joint?

thanks.

I'm a Doctor of Philosophy so my medical practice is limited to treating inconsistent existential metaphors and the like.

If you have been able to use the Free 5.0 without issues, I see no reason why you should not continue with that or similar shoes. "If it ain't broke ... ". I'll repeat a word of caution I posted earlier - don;t confuse Free" with barefoot/minimal shoes. Free is something we call "Minimal Plus" - it has a cushioned midsole. Truely minimal shoes have zero cushioning and that's a major difference. If you a looking for an alternative to Free, you'll find related products in the Skechers "GOrun" and Brooks "Pure" lines.

I'm on my second pair of New Balance 860v3 and am window shopping for something new. How do the Brooks Adrenaline GTS14 and the Saucony Progrid Omni 11 stack up against the New Balance shoes for a flat-footed overpronator?

Here are the stacks:

Our lab results show the shoes as similar in weight (all heavier than average) with relatively thick soles and similar stability/motion control features - in other words they are typical examples of the "big stability"/"motion control" products that are usually recommended for "flat-footed overpronators". The primary differences is that the Omni is more cushioned and less flexible, the 860 is less cushioned and more flexible and the Adrenaline has a balance of both. Our wear testers gave high ratings to the Adrenaline (92/100) and Omni (84/100) but were less enthusiastic about the 860v3 (38/100).

I am new to the running game and it seems whenever I start out on a long run my lungs burn and body is very achy (even if a do a little walk/fat mans jog as a warm up)--it takes about 1/2-1 mile before the tightness/difficulty breathing ends and I can run free and clear. I have no clue why this happens, and I didn't know if you had any suggestions or theories.